PRAGNYABEN NALINKUMAR KOTADIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Mr. Jaswant K. Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) BY way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed to direct respondent No. 3- Deputy Collector to issue challan to the petitioner for payment of 25% of the deficit stamp duty and Rs. 100/- reference fee and also to direct respondent No. 2- The Collector to accept and hear the appeal of the petitioner on merits.

(3.) IT is the case of the petitioner that one family friend of the petitioner had applied for a loan of Rs. 18,00,000/- from Mehsana Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd which came to be sanctioned. The petitioner herein is the owner of the immovable property and therefore, at the request of the said loanee, she accepted to be his guarantor for the said loan and hence, equitable mortgage was created on a stamp paper of Rs. 46,500/- i. e @ 0. 35% of the sanctioned loan amount as directed by the Bank. On 11. 12. 2006, the said loanee had fully paid up the loan with interest to the Bank and hence, vide order dated 11. 12. 2006, the Bank had released the said equitable mortgage to the petitioner and accordingly, a letter was written to the petitioner. On 15. 05. 2008, the respondent No. 3 had issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon her to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 53,100/- within 90 days. On 11. 11. 2008, the petitioner made a detailed representation to the respondent No. 3 herein raising various contentions and making the position very clear. On 23. 03. 2009, the respondent No. 2 declined to accept the representation dated 11. 11. 2008 of the petitioner and passed a final order to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs. 53,100/- with penalty of Rs. 100/- within a period of 90 days. On 01. 07. 2009, the petitioner had gone to respondent No. 3 with a request to issue challan so that as per the mandatory provisions, 25% of the deficit stamp duty and Rs. 100/- reference fee can be deposited with the Government which was refused by respondent No. 3. Hence, this petition.